Jim Knight: Guidance on how the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to the use of biometric data in schools is published today by the British Education Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA).
	Biometric data are increasingly being used in schools as the benefit for schools of running cashless lunch queues, and improved school libraries and attendance systems, become clear. This guidance advises schools to fully involve parents in any decision to introduce this new technology. It restates school's freedom to run themselves for the benefit of young people—including introducing new technology to make day-to-day administrative tasks easier.
	The guidance also underlines that headteachers and governing bodies should be clear and open with all parents and pupils about this and all aspects of their education. This will involve explaining what biometric technology is, how it will be used, what is involved, what data will be held and stored, why it is required, how it will be secured, and for how long it will be retained. It also advises that schools should recognise some parents' or pupils' concerns over the introduction of biometric technology and offer alternative systems, like smartcards, to access the same services if they want to opt out.
	Today's guidance sets out how Data Protection Act 1998 applies to the use of biometric data in schools—building on BECTA's existing guidance on data security and the data protection law.
	The Data Protection Act requires that:
	Schools cannot use biometric information for any purpose other than the express purpose for which it was collected. This means that data taken for use in a library, can only be used for that purpose;
	Schools must process all personal data fairly and lawfully. This means that schools must ensure that all pupils, or their parents or those with parental responsibility if schools judge they cannot understand, know what personal information they have on record and how they intend to use it.
	Schools cannot pass on biometric information to any outside organisation nor can third parties access this information;
	Schools cannot keep personal data for longer than it is needed for its specified purpose. Pupils' biometric data must therefore be destroyed when they have left the school.
	Schools must put appropriate security measures in place to safeguard personal data from unauthorised processing and accidental loss, destruction or damage. BECTA gives clear guidance to schools on data and ICT security.
	BECTA and the Information Commissioner already give schools clear guidance on how to comply with the Data Protection Act. This additional guidance is designed to help schools by confirming how the law relates to biometric data and how to comply with it.
	I want parents to be fully engaged with every aspect of their children's education—this is at the heart today's guidance. We give schools complete freedom to run their own affairs and I back every head teacher's right and professional judgment to choose technology to improve their day-to-day running—but it is plain common sense for them to talk to parents about this and all issues relating to their pupils to demystify how schools operate.
	I have seen at first hand how well these systems work. They can speed up lunch queues, remove the need for children to carry money and take away the stigma of singling out those on free school meals. Moreover, they can enable schools to register pupils more easily as they move from class to class.
	Schools are well used to handling sensitive information like attendance registers, behaviour records and home addresses. But we are absolutely clear that they have to comply with data protection laws. This means that this data can only be used for its explicitly stated purpose, cannot be shared with third parties beyond its stated purpose: and it must be destroyed when the pupil leaves the school.

Dawn Primarolo: On 17 October 2006, the Government published its response to the Health Select Committee Report on NHS Charges (Cm 6922).
	The Government responded to the 22 recommendations made by the Committee on areas such as prescription charges, car-parking charges, dental charges, on eligibility for NHS sight tests and on the hospital travel costs scheme.
	As part of the response, the Government committed to carrying out an internal review of prescription charges and to making a further statement to the House prior to the summer recess this year.
	Following this internal review, the Government have decided to hold a consultation in the autumn so that the public can contribute their views on any proposals prior to a final decision on future prescription charges.
	The Government have made clear, that any changes to the system would need to be cost neutral for the NHS. A further statement will be made after recess giving details of the consultation.

Meg Hillier: I wish to respond to the publication entitled "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2006, which is being presented as a Command Paper (7153) today. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
	This annual report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to keep Parliament informed about the use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. Some changes have been made to improve the contents and layout of this publication; in particular a more concise report with just the key tables is available in hard copy and supplementary information with additional tables is available on the Home Office website.
	The report shows an overall increase over the previous year of 4 per cent. in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was 3.01 million, an increase of 115,800 over the previous year. There has now been a relatively small increase for the fifth year running and is the highest total since 1992 and marks an overall 15 per cent. increase since 2001. A number of factors, investment in research and development and strategic priorities determine the overall level of scientific procedures
	Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 86 per cent. of the procedures carried out. These included fundamental research in human and veterinary medicine to improve understanding of disease mechanisms and possible therapeutic options, and development of vaccines. Most toxicological studies were for the safety and efficacy testing of new drugs and medicines.
	Procedures for toxicological purposes accounted for the remaining 14 per cent. of all procedures. About 74 per cent. of these were for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medicines. In keeping with previous years, those procedures that used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 83 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 9 per cent. and those using birds, 4 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, that is; those species offered special protection by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total.
	Genetically normal animals were used in about 1.65 million regulated procedures, representing 55 per cent. of all procedures for 2006 (compared with 57 per cent. in 2005 and 84 per cent. in 1995). Genetically modified animals (nearly all rodents) were used in 1.04 million regulated procedures representing, 34 per cent. of all procedures for 2006 (compared with 33 per cent. in 2005 and 8 per cent. in 1995).
	Advances in the opportunities to use genetically altered animals for new areas of biomedical research means that the trend of increased production and use of genetically altered animals has continued. It allows a more precise and often less invasive study of physiological processes and disease mechanisms than was previously possible. Most of the animals concerned are mice, which appear and live as normal. Many are only used in breeding programmes.
	The licensing system is demand led and the 1986 Act provides the Home Office, as regulator, with no mechanism for reducing animal use. Instead the Act requires that animal use is kept to a minimum. In addition, the procedures authorised must cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the least sentience. The Act also requires that, before a project licence is issued, we must weigh the benefits to humans, other animals, or the environment against the costs to the animals involved. A licence cannot be granted if the work could be carried out without using animals.
	The report and supplementary information can be found at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/scientific1.html

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have today laid "The Government Car and Despatch Agency" annual report and accounts 2006-07" before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.